Posted 2 years ago on Sept. 25, 2012, 9:14 a.m. EST by notaneoliberal
(2269)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Neoliberalism: Neoconservatism Without a Smirk
It has become increasingly obvious that the only difference between Barack Obama and George W. Bush is that the famous Bush smirk has been replaced by the Obama smile. The neoconservatism of Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and Bill O’Reilly has given way to the neoliberalism of Bill Clinton, Timothy Geithner, Bernie Sanders, and Chris Matthews. The differences between neoliberalism and neoconservatism are similar to the differences between Coke and Pepsi, virtually nil.

Neoconservatism is best defined by its foreign policy agenda which includes full spectrum dominance, imperial overstretch, nuclear primacy, the right of pre-emptive strike, and unconditional support for the State of Israel. Although neoliberals are much less bellicose in their rhetoric than their neoconservative counterparts, they passively acquiesce to the neocon foreign policy paradigm. They do little or nothing to end the wars with Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the annihilation of Palestine carried out by our close ally Israel. Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech in Oslo was little short of a global call to arms couched in the language of the doctrine of “just war.” Although neocons make it abundantly clear that they are military hawks, most neoliberals are closet hawks as well.

Consider the case of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, the darling of the Left, who pretends to be a socialist, which he is not. Not only does Sanders support all military appropriation bills and military aid to Israel, but he is currently promoting the opening of a satellite facility of the Sandia Corporation in Vermont. The Sandia Corporation, a subsidiary of Lockheed Martin Company, develops, creates, maintains, and evaluates nuclear weapons systems. Sandia’s roots go back to the Manhattan Project in World War II. Just what peace loving Vermonters need, a nuclear weapons manufacturer located in their own backyard.

Both neolibs and neocons are apologists for globalization and are steeped in the ideology that bigger, faster, and more high-tech make better. In their heart of hearts neolibs and neocons know that only the federal government can solve all of our problems, failing to realize that the federal government is the problem. Both embrace corporate socialism, socialism for the rich, and the social welfare state while pretending to be opposed to publicly financed social welfare. It’s all about people of the lie.

Neoliberals pretend to be concerned about inequities in the distribution of income and wealth. Neoconservatives make it abundantly clear that they couldn’t care less.

Both neolibs and neocons are authoritarian statists each with their own definition of political correctness. Politically correct neolibs are expected to be pro-abortion, pro-gay-lesbian, pro-affirmative action, pro-Israel, pro-gun control, anti-clerical, pro-big government, and pro-American Empire. Anyone who does not conform to this litany or who associates with those who do not, is at risk of being attacked by a left wing truth squad such as the Southern Poverty Law Center and accused of the likes of homophobia, racism, anti-semitism, religious fundamentalism, or even hate crimes. Politically correct neocons are more likely to be pro-life, anti-gay-lesbian, anti-affirmative action, pro-Israel, anti-gun control, pro-clerical, pro-big government, and pro-Empire. Both are vehemently opposed to secession.

Above all, what neoliberals and neoconservatives have in common is that they are technofascists. Benito Mussolini defined fascism as “the merger of state and corporate power.” Technofascism is the melding of corporate, state, military, and technological power by a handful of political elites which enables them to manipulate and control the population through the use of money, markets, media and the Internet.

Neoliberals and neoconservatives alike march to the beat of the same drummer – the largest, wealthiest, most powerful, most materialistic, most racist, most militaristic, most violent empire of all time.

Ultimately the differences between neoliberalism and neoconservatism are purely cosmetic. You may either have your technofascism with a smirk or you can have it with a smile.

108 Comments

I echo other posters who commend this excellent 'forum-post'. I would also add that both "Neo-Liberal" AND "Neo-Con" are both essentially right-wing ideologies.

"Neo-Liberalism" is a faux-construct concerned with 'economic idealism' centred on fallacious notions of "free markets" - which were actually first formulated in the days and at the height of The British Empire - which actually depended on 'closed & captured markets' with huge barriers to entry, backed by a Navy !!

"Neo-Con" is a far more recent but equally pernicious 'school of thought' which is far more concerned with Aggressive Foreign Policy and US Imperial Hegemony. The term was first attached to erstwhile 'leftists' (some even ex-Trotskyites) who turned their backs on 'Leftist Internationalism' or 'Socialism' and then with a virulent anti-soviet communism - instead embraced US Exceptionlism. Some key figures to consider are 'Leo Strauss', 'Irving Kristol' ('William Kristol's Dad), Richard Pipes and of course 'PNAC'.

Yep 'nan', I've got 'your six' on that. These days, 'Neo-Liberalism' ; "Washington Consensus' ; World Bank/IMF 'Freemarketism' is being pushed by 'Neo-Con' ; 'Neo-Feudalist' ; 'Paleo-Imperialists', who are using 'Economics' to try to export 'democracy' at the point of a gun. Please try to see those videos. The shorter 'Neo-Con' is shocking and the longer 'Kochs Exposed' (ahem) doc. will ... well watch it & see ;-)

Thanx for this really great link. It is a substantive and very interesting read which I have saved and will revisit again in future. Thanx again and I also attach this wee link : http://tinyurl.com/ which may be useful to you and others from a more practical 'pov' ;-)

Neo Liberal, refers to the psuedo revival of the liberal economics of Adam Smith, by Hayek and von Mises, the delusions of Ayn Rand and the cynical hypocrisy of Milton Friedman. Reagan and the Bushes were neo liberals, not all the so called liberal politicians mostly in the Democratic Party. Clinton, Carter and such always leaned conservative but don't deserve the neo liberal label as much as Republican shills of the rich.

Sorry AG, it's not me who needs to look it up. I'm very clear on the difference between social liberalism and neoliberalism. Neoliberalism is about "free market" economics. When Democrats favor NAFTA, CAFTA, the TPP and more, that's neoliberalism.. Look it up. Throwing out some useless rhetoric and supporting ancillary minor social issues, to convince "the faithful" that they are "on your side", does not deceive me.

It wasn't clear to me that you understood the difference. Did you read the part about Ayn Rand and the rest of the neo liberal economics or just the 'so called' liberal politicians. The latter are more conservative than most Democrats. And you didn't mention any of the neo liberal conservatives. They are the most likely suspects in every case. Why is that? I don't need to look it up. I also have no need to skew the facts, because I'm sincere and have no desire to deceive or divert attention from the real criminals in America.

The gist of the article was that the position of the right, Republican neocons, is "in your face". The article mentions George Bush, and his famous "smirk". It is obvious that they are pro-neoliberal. It is the other side that tends to be more duplicitous.PS (If you take a look at my user name, you might expect me to know what neoliberal means.)

This comment pertains only to those in America not those in foreign countries, who (luckily for most of them) have a system of proportional representation:

Pushing the idea that both parties are equally corrupt in a two party system is not only inaccurate, it is a proposition created to disempower all Americans. It is not so hard to conceive that there are differing factions within the existing parties, and that therefore the battle must become a struggle for control of one of those two parties. This is no different from being a struggle between two parties except to those who don't do nuance.

Our opponents (i.e., the .001%) exploit this situation endlessly in the hopes we are too stupid to understand that level of "complexity".

Could we create a viable third party? No harm in running alternative party candidates to find out how far that can go, but probably not at the federal level in this idiotic winner take all system, open to bribery, when we are opposed by those who control about 93% of the nation's wealth!

Therefore, we must deal with the system as it is until we have sufficient political power to reform it. No one can convince me there is any other Viable way forward at this juncture. And so all debate along these lines is simply putting the cart before the horse in regard to the only thing that matters in politics, access; and therefore serves those who would render the American left, of which Occupy is a part, powerless.

This is the misconception that the .001% are pushing hardest here through their agents, because it has worked for them very well in the past.

The answer then, whether we like it or not, for now, is to push the existing two party system to the left. The good news? We got a good start in the last election. Only engagement, relentless engagement In The Existing System will get us to a point where we have more sweeping options regarding political freedom. Apathy and confusion are the enemy.

Let me start with the part I can agree with. "Could we create a viable third party? No harm in running alternative party candidates to find out how far that can go, but probably not at the federal level in this idiotic winner take all system, open to bribery, when we are opposed by those who control about 93% of the nation's wealth!
Therefore, we must deal with the system as it is until we have sufficient political power to reform it. No one can convince me there is any other Viable way forward at this juncture. And so all debate along these lines is simply putting the cart before the horse in regard to the only thing that matters in politics, access; and therefore serves those who would render the American left, of which Occupy is a part, powerless." This seems to be a reasonable assertion.
Now on this- "Pushing the idea that both parties are equally corrupt in a two party system is not only inaccurate, it is a proposition created to disempower all Americans." I don't see that the article was referring to corruption, per se, but rather economic policy and as it stated “the merger of state and corporate power.” Whether or not you wish to describe this as corruption or not, I leave to your judgement. In these arenas, I find the two parties, or at least the leadership, to be disturbingly similar, if not precisely equal. Note also that the article did not mention parties, but rather individuals.

I felt no need to separately address the issue. I agreed with your suggestion that the most expeditious way forward is to try to attempt to influence the existing political power structure, if I understood you correctly. I think that the article was just a wake up call as to what we are up against. Let us not become complacent when a candidate is elected who claims to be one thing but whose actions say another.

They are both libertarian on economic issues. Funny how the libertarians here bash "neoliberals", I don't think they got the memo.

The libertarian conspiracy nuts are right about one thing: Neoliberals and Neocons are both flawed. They just get it backwards, because the problem with both is that they favor libertarian economic policies.

Nice link. So, ironically, the "left-right paradigm" that libertarians on this forum complain about is actually a "libertarian paradigm": both neoconservatives and neoliberals subscribe to libertarian economic philosophies.

Ah, how you overlook the finer points. Your lizard friends, whom you met at Occupy Wauchula, share the same economic principles as Hayek, and Friedman, and all of the great lizardarians in history.

That is, you oppose any govt intervention, because "markets know best".

Yes, there are slight variations in lizardry, with Bernanke who favors QE3 and similar techniques (which were invented solely avoid the inevitable fiscal stimulus), and the hardcore nutjobs who want to close the Fed down altogether. But you are all variations on a reptilian theme, cut from the very same cloth of "the gubmint can't do nuthin' right!", "if we run up the debt any more, we're all gonna be speakin' Chinese!", and my personal favorite, "if only we would have left things to the market, a crisis like this could have been averted."

Go back and read the article on neoliberalism again. Notice the names of prominent libertarian economists like Hayek and Friedman. Notice how Tony Blair and Bill Clinton applied their same lizard-think. Read, read until you unlearn the lizard lies.

I am not a neoliberal, so I doubt I could ever get elected to congress.

I put college age libertarians in the same category as women who stay with the men who beat them. Except for rich college age libertarians, who are more like women who stay with men who beat other women.

all ItalianAmericans are in the mafia
all snakes are scary
all politicians are crooks
all HispanicAmericans are illegal
all ice cream is yummy
all AfricanAmericans are on welfare
all JewishAmericans are crooks

Am I a "black and white" thinker? I try not to be. saying; labels are the way un-reasoning lemmings make decisions" does not seem to apply. The human brain has the ability to recognize patterns. This has proven to be a useful attribute. Recognizing that people who exhibit certain sets of behaviors, such as the those that characterize neoliberalism, has nothing to do with characterizing an ethnic group, a genus or species of organisms, or an entire group such as all politicians. Only those that exhibit the characteristics that define the group are in the group, not all others that happen to fall into another subset. Furthermore, the tendency to to label, with labels that are far less specifically defined, is sort of what this subject speaks to. There seems to be a contingent here that likes to assert- all Republicans are bad- all Democrats are good. I don't think it's that black and white.

It will take more than two of us. I did send a email to the white house, asking the president why he promised to amend or eliminate NAFTA in his campaign but did no such thing, rather he has expanded FTAs, Making things much worse. All we can do, it seems, is to increase awareness, or try to organize for 2016 for someone like Kucinich, and good congressmen in the meantime. Protesting in the streets can also make a difference. When Obama says he's concerned about jobs, but then pushes the TPP, we need to call him out on it.

I can't disagree with that post, but getting the money OUT is still the easiest path to victory.
Specifically - NAFTA & &FRA & TPP are not a Democratic or republiclan plot.
They are contracts bought and paid for.

Yeah they send me requests for my money too - I ignore those - actually I copied off the 1st request onto another letter to the government and said that if they wanted support - that the best way to get it would be to start demonstrably working for the people - told em they really would not need the money in that event. I copy these letters and post em here for review as I also post them out on social media - to get the people thinking.

I try to advocate that everyone write to the government - to all of their representatives and to post those letters on the internet for others to see and consider. If we could ignite a fire storm of letters to all of the officials in government - it would be awesome. Not just letters of complaint but also letters pointing out sane and common sense things that the government should be doing. These letters all shared and circulated to the public as food for thought as well as reasons to get involved.

I am, of course not referring to it's dictionary definition but to the phenomena that occurs when "neo" gets itself attached to two noble political traditions. It turns them into forces working towards the opposite of their namesakes goals.

Where once the traditional conservative path was neutrality ,non-intervention and the Republic, the neoconservative seeks intrigue, war and empire.

Liberal was once synonymous with helping the poor, democracy and social justice... How does that square with what they've actually wrought with the global Free Trade regime?

I agree that the neoconservative has diverged greatly from conservatism. The "liberal" in neoliberal, however, refers to liberal economics, not social liberalism. Liberal, or Classical economics is roughly the same as Lassiez Faire, or "hands off" economics. http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=376

Funny, a lot of people seem to think you're an irritating fuck. Yes, Sanders seems to be on the right side of a lot of issues, but that seems to blind you to taking a hard look at your heroes. So instead of having the balls to address the issue that was mentioned, you go all over the place with unrelated issues.

Well, actually, if you looked closely, those weren't my words. I posted an article. I should point out, (and probably should have pointed this out in the post) I take exception to the statement "the federal government is the problem" That is not my position. I posted the article because, aside from that, I think it serves to show how little the difference between the two camps.